The State of Sexual Citizenship in the US - Case Study Example

THE STATE OF SEXUAL CITIZENSHIP IN THE US Name Professor Introduction The demand for equal rights is not a new concept. Women had long ago and as early as the 18th century demanded that they be given rights that were denied them by reason of their sex. It took the movement to finally obtain substantial relief to their demands after the passage of more than a century. Today, another wave of equal right movement is flourishing under the aegis of the so-called third sex. The late 20th century spurred the age of neoliberalism that brought about sexual revolution, among other things. Neoliberalism inspired individuals to come to terms with their sexuality openly and to defy traditional sexual conventions. In celebration and as a reflection of this growing neoliberal tendency, scholars coined the word sexual citizenship to serve as a collective battle cry of the sexual minorities who perceived themselves as marginalized members of society. The sexual citizenship discourse underscores the demands by the third sex to share equal rights with the heterosexual members of society. This paper discusses the concept of sexual citizenship as laid down by scholars as well as the related concepts of citizenship and sexuality as separate components of the term. Moreover, this paper posits the premise that the concept of citizenship is not the best vehicle through which the third sex should engage to further their advocacies for equal rights because the inherently asexual nature of the concept would render the movement difficult and complicated. The Concept of Sexual Citizenship: What is it? In the hope of capturing the various aspects of the rights and privileges evoked by the term citizenship and apply it to the growing sexual liberalism, Jeffrey Weeks coined the term ‘sexual citizenship.’ He described it as a new historical invention and refers to a sexual citizen as a “hybrid being, breaching the public/private divide which Western culture has long held to be essential” (p. 36). According to Weeks, contemporary sexual movements do not only seek to challenge the status quo as illustrated by gay pride marches and disruption of pulpit sermons by members of the third sex, but also to claim inclusion and acceptance. The second aspect of the movement is the moment of citizenship when members of the third sex demand equality of treatment with heterosexual members of society and equality of rights, before society and the law (1998, pp. 36-37). Sexual citizenship, thus, carries with it the concepts of belonging, recognition and participation or in other words, a gender-blind approach to treatment of members of society. The movement is underpinned by the claim of the third sex that they are regarded as second class citizens because of the discriminatory treatment against them. According to this argument, if a citizen is allowed to enjoy certain rights, but these rights are denied to another then the latter is not a full citizen as the former. An example would be a denial of military service to a homosexual or prohibition of marriage license to a couple of the same sex (Robson and Kessler 2007, pp. 537-538). Despite the attempt in the preceding paragraphs to define sexual citizenship, there is no really universal agreement as to what it actually constitutes, according to Diane Richardson, a British sociologist. Various scholars highlight various aspects to define the term. Thus, while some use the term to describe certain political and social rights, others may harp on the connection between consumerism and sexual practices, while still others underscore cultural factors of sexuality and citizenship. Sociologist Richardson, however, attaches multiple connotations on the term, (Corboz 2009, pp. 1-2), which is the most practical thing to do and is often the most acceptable approach. Thus, his argument is anchored on the theory that gays and lesbians are deprived of the full rights guaranteed to citizens because the term citizenship itself is based on institutionalized heterosexuality (Corboz 2009, p. 2). Analysis of the State of Sexual Citizenship in the US At first blush, the term sexual citizenship strikes an odd feeling of bewilderment as the combination of the two words does not create a comprehensible concept that can easily be grasped. The word ‘citizen’ is an old concept that is equated with the membership of an individual to a particular a state as opposed to another state and the word ‘sexual’ describing intimate physical activities pertaining to the sexes. Both words evoke distinction and membership to a specific group, but aside from that they are as unrelated as a can of soda and an umbrella. This confusing impact of the term may be because the words constituting it are actually “contradiction in terms,” as Seuffert claims (quoted Naffine 2006, p. 180). Thus, while citizenship is associated with the exercise of rights in the public realm as a consequence of membership to an independent state, sexuality is equated with privacy and intimacy. Although this is not exactly accurate, the fact remains that this is how the public at large perceive these terms (Naffine 2006, p. 180). In the Aristotelian context, for example, the concept of citizenship refers to the privilege to participate directly in governance. During his time, Greece did not follow a representative democracy as do contemporary democracies do, but allowed citizens to attend assemblies, and other governmental bodies to decide the fate of the state (Miller 2011). Although the definition of citizenship has evolved, it nevertheless retained the essence of being a political privilege granted to a person who belongs as a member of a specific society. On the other hand, T.H. Marshall made a more expanded definition of citizenship by classifying it into three components: civil, which refers to the right to enjoy individual freedoms such as the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights; political, which refers to the right to participate indirectly in governance through the right of suffrage, and; social, which refers to the right to economic welfare and security and simply being allowed to live as a civilized being in accordance to the prevailing norms. Marshall’s conception of citizenship was subsequently expanded to include the cultural and economic aspects. The cultural aspect of citizenship is made to refer to the right to partake within a national culture in an effective, creative and successful manner while its economic aspect is the attributed to the concept of consumerism and all the rights and privileges appurtenant to it (Robson and Kessler 2007, p. 540). On the other hand, the word ‘sex’ or ‘sexes’ is used to strictly refer to the official genders, that is, the male and the female or the act of coitus between them. Through the passage of time and with the onset of the sexual liberation, the word ‘sex’ has evolved to include all kinds of intimate acts not only between the official sexes, but also of the members of the so-called third sex. The converging point between the two words is that the early conceptions of citizenship were largely limited and discriminative. During Aristotle’s time women and slaves did not have the rights extended to citizens and T.H. Marshall defined citizenship in the context of the 1950s construction period in the American history where women, blacks and member of the third sex did not have the same rights as white men. Aside from its confusing impact, the term sexual citizenship encourages alienation rather than promote unity and belongingness because of its emphasis on division. As earlier discussed, citizenship evokes membership through which an individual becomes qualified to receive the rights and privileges by virtue of such membership. The word ‘sexuality,’ on the other hand, makes emphasis on the differences between a man and a woman, and the official man-woman gender and the third sex composed of lesbians and gays. A reading from all the sexual citizenship discourse reveals that it is all about advocating for a level playing field in the areas not only of political rights, but also of social, economic, cultural, and civic concerns. In short, the emerging sexual orientation wants to assert themselves as full members of society having the same rights and privileges as those of a male and female. The history of the United States shows that struggles for equality were successfully made on platforms emphasizing ‘sameness’ rather than differences. The black Americans gained access to civil and political rights by stressing that they were as human as whites and therefore, deserve equal rights granted to the latter. In the sexual equality campaign, for example, women were the first to walk the path and they did so employing the platform of equality of talent and capabilities. History showed that the discrimination against women was done both on the private and public levels and therefore, conducted overtly and covertly. It was common knowledge that women in the past were denied the right of suffrage, the right to own land, the right to work and some other basic rights as well as the right to assert themselves in their homes. As early as 1848, women gathered in Seneca Falls in New York in a convention that had to be presided by a man to be lawful although it was a call to arms for women to assert their rights in a society that was not only highly patriarchal, but discriminatory against women. In this convention, women, led by the group of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, passed resolutions on women’s rights that were anchored on the US Declaration of Independence (Finkelman pp. 31-32). The use of the Declaration of Independence to promote the women advocacy in the 18th century was a legitimate opportunity for women to assert themselves as equals of men considering the significance of the document in the struggle of the American people for independence against British rule and domination. Women, therefore, conveyed their claims by emphasizing that they were as capable as men and therefore, should be treated on the same basis. Although it took women in the US more than a century to reap the first fruits of success, it was the US women movement that inspired other women in other parts of the world to follow suit and began asserting themselves as well. Nonetheless, it was only during the WWII that women proved themselves as capable as men in holding jobs that were conventionally held by men such as steelworkers and pilots (Teacher’s Guide: Women’s Right Movement p. 1). Thus, while the women movement tried to close the gap of differences between men and women to persuade a highly patriarchal society to set aside actual differences, the sexual citizenship campaign seems to highlight the differences. But while it is easier and legitimate to assail a patriarchal society, attacking the heteropatriarchal nature of American society is not. While the role of women in public could be ignored, their role in the privacy of homes could not be disregarded. This gave them the leverage that is not now present in the movement of the third sex. On the contrary, the emergence of sexual citizenship came off under rather auspicious circumstances. The popularity of the term sexual citizenship was propelled by the extreme homophobia that was provoked by two events that started in the 1980s and into the 1990s. The rise of sexual citizenship in the United States, in particular, and everywhere else is perceived to have been influenced by the convergence of these two sets of events. The first event was the combined effect of Thatcherism in the UK and the Reagan Revolution in the US that resulted in the rise of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism gave people, especially the gay community the inspiration to defy social conventions, especially in expressing their sexual desires and preferences. The second event was the occurrence of the AIDS pandemic in the 1990s (Chapman p. 32). This event resulted in a panic that was blamed, whether wrongly or not, on the sexual practices of the gay community. The extreme homophobia that resulted from these events gave the gay community the platform to fight for their rights and later on, snowballing to the sexual citizenship discourse. In the women movement, women had to deal with the chauvinism of men but in the present sexual citizenship campaign, the third sex had to deal with a bigger enemy – the conservatism not only men, but also of women. The difficulty in overcoming the enemy may be compounded by highlighting sexual differences rather melding them. Another argument against the use of sexual citizenship as the vehicle to campaign equal rights for the gay community is the conversion of the asexual concept of ‘citizenship’ into a sexual one. After the initial dull and confusing impact of the term has died down, the public may come to realize that the term is an attack against the heterosexual status quo in an effort to seek the inclusion of the third sex as minority group, giving it a gender-differentiated characteristic, which can readily evoke feelings of hostility and antagonism. Such an approach, according to some scholars, may not be fruitful because of the initial tension it creates. Sociologist Anthony Giddens, for example remarks that “sexual relationship built on a sense of trust, respect and care, free from coercion and violence, are democratic” (quoted Richardson 2000, p. 261). The implication here is that because a gender-differentiated approach seems to be confrontational rather than geared towards a subtle effect, it might evoke unfriendly responses that can aggravate differences rather than harmonize them. The sexualization of the term citizenship can be put offing because of the attempt to alter an institutionalized term into something that it is not and this is exacerbated by the fact that anything that is sexualized tends to bring about initial feeling of discomfort. Unlike women movement, the third sex movement as reflected by the sexual citizenship discourse is hindered by large sectors of society that are not yet convinced of what Richardson calls a “born that way” argument. As Naffin states: Full admission to polity not only entails a grant of formal public rights. To be fully admitted, one must be allowed to express and affirm, in a public manner, those aspects of one’s identity that matter most. Heterosexual persons have already sexual citizenship in both senses. They possess a way of affirming their particular form of sexual intimacy in a highly public way, as well as a broad range of public institutions reflecting and endorsing the heterosexual order. The homosexual person is still excluded from both a full and rich sense of national identity and also from all of the rights that accrue to citizens simply because they are heterosexual (Naffin 2006, 181). The implication here is that the use of sexual citizenship discourse is so unsubtle that it may come off a forcing through, which is not good considering that homosexuality, whether its proponents like it or not, is not yet an established institution. Women, who are already established as legitimate counterparts of the male sex, took more than a century to establish equal rights with men and they started through gradual claims of rights and freedoms. By contrast, the use sexual citizenship discourse seems to be barging its way through and assuming facts that have not yet been established, which may work against it rather than for it. Historically, the gay movement in the US started only in the late 1960s century with the Stonewall Incident in which a stand-off between police and customers in a gay bar escalated into violence. There was a subsequent campaign to legalize gay bars and the formation of The Gay Liberation Front, which led demonstrations across the nation to demand for gay rights. Today, the homosexual organization in the US is strong because it is highly organized and influential (Kusano 2000, pp. 202). This does not mean however, that it is established to a degree that it can, according to Naffin, assume that it is automatically granted formal public rights. This is supported by the research conducted by Schroeder in which he attempted to gauge the changes of attitude of Americans towards homosexuality between the period 1972 to 2000. His research shows that there was little change in the attitude towards homosexuality, with males being more liberal in their views towards the subject than women and in contrast there were substantial changes, toward the favorable side, of views towards women and blacks (Schroeder 2004, p. 9). Conclusion The use of sexual citizenship in promoting the demands of the third sex for equal rights with heterosexuals is counterproductive for many reasons. For one, the term is superficially an oxymoron because while ‘citizenship’ connotes public nature, sexuality still largely belongs to the private sphere. Although such may not be necessarily true, they are the common conception of the terms and its oxymoronic use creates confusion and unintelligibility that substantially mar the subject that the term represents. Secondly, the use of the term may evoke hostility and antagonism before its proponents has even laid down their entire cause because of the reducing an asexualized term into something sexual. The term citizenship has been defined and described as far back as the ancient time of Athens by no less than Aristotle and has figured and made an underlying theme in many historical struggles and events of the country that it has sort of acquired a certain dignified stature and is in itself almost an institution. Combining it with another word that evokes physical intimacy may bring about initial suspicions and hostility against any movement that hides behind the term. Finally, and in connection with the preceding rationale, the term presumes something that may still be unacceptable to a larger sector of the population. The homosexual organization in the country may have established itself successfully in the country enough to persuade and influence public policy, but the acceptability of homosexuals to be on equal footing with heterosexuals is still far from being real as indicated in the Schroeder research showing that views towards homosexuality had hardly changed in the span of 30 years. As Naffin stated, the third sex cannot automatically assume that formal political rights will be granted to them as a separate minority sexual group because unlike heterosexuals they have yet to establish acceptance in the public eye as a sexual group. In this sense, the term sexual citizenship is too revolutionary and too controversial to be used as its battle cry. References: Chapman, T. (2007). Constructing the Moral Landscape Through Antidiscrimination Law: Discourse, Debate, and Dialogue of Sexual Citizenship in Three Florida Communities. ProQuest. Corboz, J. (2009). Sexuality, Citizenship and Sexual Rights. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, 1-23. Finkel, P. (2006). Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1895: From the Colonial Period to the Age of Frederick Douglass, Volume 2. Oxford University Press. Forell, C. (2006). Gender Equality, Social Values and Provocation Law in the United States, Canada and Australia. Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, vol. 14(1): 27-71. Kusano, A. (2000). The Political Influence of Homosexuals in the United States: Their Pattern of Action and Sources of Power. The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 11: 199- 217. Miller, F. (2010). Aristotle’s Political Theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/#ConCit. Naffine, N. (2006). Sexual Citizen. Sexuality and Citizenship Special Issue, 37 VUWLR:175- 181. Richardson, D. (2000). Claiming Citizenship? Sexuality, Citizenship and Lesbian/Feminist Theory. Sexualities vol. 3(2): 255-272. SAGE Publications. Robson, R. and Kessler, T. (2008). Unsettling Sexual Citizenship. McGill Law Journal, vol. 53: 535-571. Schroeder, M/ (2004). Changing Social Attitudes in the United States: Increasing Acceptance of Homosexuals. YW-L Journal of Undergraduate Studies VII: 1-10. Teacher’s Guide: Women’s Right Movement. ABC News, Classroom Edition. Weeks, J. (1998). The Sexual Citizen. Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 15(38): 35-52. Read More